- Thank you received: 0
Planetary accretion?
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
18 years 9 months ago #17343
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
I think I can visualize what you are talking about. That might be more like what would happen if a rocky planet such as Earth were to over-spin (after solidifying) and form one or more moons, but stars would be balls of dust / gas / plasma and ought to behave very much like the animation.
LB
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 9 months ago #14947
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Why wouldn't the tidal forces try to keep the materials from forming spheres, shouldn't their accelerations change making it difficult to form spheres until distance allows for more discreet spheres of gravitational influence to evolve?
I wasn't disputing the shape of the ejecting star, but the condition of the material at the time of ejection and after ejection for the period of time before cooling and solidification (or consolidsation for gas planets).
Mark Vitrone
I wasn't disputing the shape of the ejecting star, but the condition of the material at the time of ejection and after ejection for the period of time before cooling and solidification (or consolidsation for gas planets).
Mark Vitrone
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 9 months ago #14863
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[MarkVitrone] "Why wouldn't the tidal forces try to keep the materials from forming spheres, shouldn't their accelerations change making it difficult to form spheres until distance allows for more discreet spheres of gravitational influence to evolve?"
I imagine that tidal forces would indeed fight with self-gravitation for control over the fate of the newly fissioned mass. If the new mass forms within the Roche Limit tidal forces should win. If it forms outside of the Roche Limit self-gravitation should win. If it forms more or less at the Roche Limit some of the loose material might be pulled back to the parent or boosted to escape.
A rule-of-thumb from several Websites places the Roche Limit for a liquid satellite (zero tensile strength) at about 2 1/2 primary radii from the center of the primary, or about 1 1/2 primary radii above the surface. (Results can vary. Your mileage may be different.)
Assuming that the fission animation is roughly to scale (+/- 20% ?) it shows the child masses forming at about that distance from the primary. Perhaps a little more. (But if this weren't the case, it seems unlikely that many newly fissioned masses would survive.)
Hmmm. Maybe the child mass can't split from the (liquid or gaseous) parent until the parent has stretched far enough (during the extreme prolate phase) to start the child at or above the Roche Limit. Until then the self gravitation of the parent prevents the split.
???,
LB
I imagine that tidal forces would indeed fight with self-gravitation for control over the fate of the newly fissioned mass. If the new mass forms within the Roche Limit tidal forces should win. If it forms outside of the Roche Limit self-gravitation should win. If it forms more or less at the Roche Limit some of the loose material might be pulled back to the parent or boosted to escape.
A rule-of-thumb from several Websites places the Roche Limit for a liquid satellite (zero tensile strength) at about 2 1/2 primary radii from the center of the primary, or about 1 1/2 primary radii above the surface. (Results can vary. Your mileage may be different.)
Assuming that the fission animation is roughly to scale (+/- 20% ?) it shows the child masses forming at about that distance from the primary. Perhaps a little more. (But if this weren't the case, it seems unlikely that many newly fissioned masses would survive.)
Hmmm. Maybe the child mass can't split from the (liquid or gaseous) parent until the parent has stretched far enough (during the extreme prolate phase) to start the child at or above the Roche Limit. Until then the self gravitation of the parent prevents the split.
???,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #17192
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
I have been following this discussion and what I see as an unstated, implicit assumption is that electromagnetic repulsion is universal and "everywhere". Therefore, participants are wondering how planets form.
Here is a "wild" ball thrown in from left field. If the proton is asymmetric in shape and behavior, then the formation of a solar system follows a different path. We can begin with nothing more than protons (atomic hydrogen), Elysium and the gravitational flux. With gravitation pushing the nebula inward, the temperature (i.e. the velocity) of the atomic hydrogen rises. Reaching a certain minimum temperature, somew of the collisions between atomic hydrogen will begin to form deuterium. One successful collision out of every sextillion collisions will do nicely. If the two protons, which fuse together, encapsulate the "electron" of each hydrogen atom, then the new deuterium nucleus does not have electromagnetic repulsion. If this were the case, the Elysium surrounding the deuterium would not be heated and "vaporized" by the electromagnetic waves coming out of normal atomic hydrogen. Deuterium would reflect light but not emit light. The Elysium would become "cold, dark, liquid-like". The everpresent gravitational flux would push the deuterium and the "cold" Elysium into a sphere. Lacking electromagnetic repulsion, the deuterium would polymerize into a growing nucleus. I am not proposing any attractive force here; simply repulsion and lack of repulsion.
I propose that a sunspot is a planet in the making. They grow; they migrate to the Sun's equator and then they finally "disappear" with montrous solar flares. They are objectively dark because they reflect light but they do not emit light. Collision between them would result in huge explosions.
Now, let's start with a large proto-sun which is several billion miles in diameter. A deuterium ball slowly forms. As it grows in mass, it aquires a very stable orbit and a very stable spin (conservation of momentum). As the surrounding solar plasma becomes exhausted - from making the deuterium which polymerizes, it falls inward - pushed by the gravitational flux. The result is a brand new planet with its own orbit and a star which has shrunk inward.
Once a new planet has lost the "protection" of a cold, dark, liquid-like Elysium, it will be subject to ordinary nuclear collisions. The surface of the planet will undergo radioactive decay. This process will be self pepetuating. The planetary core will undergo continuous, surface decay which will create all elements, and their isotopes and their isomers by random breakdown. An element will finally become stable when enough protons on its surface have their electromagnetic side exposed, thus recreating electromagnetic repulsion.
The planet would grow in size. The "normal" matter would constitute a high majority of the volume of the planet but this same normal matter would be only a tiny fraction of the total mass. Therefore, the planetary spin would remain high. Eventually, normal matter would break free of the planet and create rings at the equator. Thus, Saturn is our only "normal" planet.
But what would create moons? I propose that the passage of another planet would cause this. The two, nuclear cores of the two, passing planets would create a gravitational void between the two planets. With this void present, each planet would throw off material due to the centrifugal force of its spin. The accumulated material would collapse to form a moon. Perhaps more than one moon.
The above sequence is described in the ancient Sumerian "Epic of Creation" as currently translated. They could have observed a planet coming into the solar system. If it passed nearby some of our planets, such as Jupiter, then both planets would create moons. These ancient writers would see and report these events without understanding the how and why.
The geometric positioning and size of our planets could be explained by such a process, which involves polymeric nuclear fusion first, exhaustion of the solar plasma second, and finally the creation of normal matter by radioactive fission.
Readers need not to worry. Absolutely no one agrees with my wild idea.
Gregg Wilson
Here is a "wild" ball thrown in from left field. If the proton is asymmetric in shape and behavior, then the formation of a solar system follows a different path. We can begin with nothing more than protons (atomic hydrogen), Elysium and the gravitational flux. With gravitation pushing the nebula inward, the temperature (i.e. the velocity) of the atomic hydrogen rises. Reaching a certain minimum temperature, somew of the collisions between atomic hydrogen will begin to form deuterium. One successful collision out of every sextillion collisions will do nicely. If the two protons, which fuse together, encapsulate the "electron" of each hydrogen atom, then the new deuterium nucleus does not have electromagnetic repulsion. If this were the case, the Elysium surrounding the deuterium would not be heated and "vaporized" by the electromagnetic waves coming out of normal atomic hydrogen. Deuterium would reflect light but not emit light. The Elysium would become "cold, dark, liquid-like". The everpresent gravitational flux would push the deuterium and the "cold" Elysium into a sphere. Lacking electromagnetic repulsion, the deuterium would polymerize into a growing nucleus. I am not proposing any attractive force here; simply repulsion and lack of repulsion.
I propose that a sunspot is a planet in the making. They grow; they migrate to the Sun's equator and then they finally "disappear" with montrous solar flares. They are objectively dark because they reflect light but they do not emit light. Collision between them would result in huge explosions.
Now, let's start with a large proto-sun which is several billion miles in diameter. A deuterium ball slowly forms. As it grows in mass, it aquires a very stable orbit and a very stable spin (conservation of momentum). As the surrounding solar plasma becomes exhausted - from making the deuterium which polymerizes, it falls inward - pushed by the gravitational flux. The result is a brand new planet with its own orbit and a star which has shrunk inward.
Once a new planet has lost the "protection" of a cold, dark, liquid-like Elysium, it will be subject to ordinary nuclear collisions. The surface of the planet will undergo radioactive decay. This process will be self pepetuating. The planetary core will undergo continuous, surface decay which will create all elements, and their isotopes and their isomers by random breakdown. An element will finally become stable when enough protons on its surface have their electromagnetic side exposed, thus recreating electromagnetic repulsion.
The planet would grow in size. The "normal" matter would constitute a high majority of the volume of the planet but this same normal matter would be only a tiny fraction of the total mass. Therefore, the planetary spin would remain high. Eventually, normal matter would break free of the planet and create rings at the equator. Thus, Saturn is our only "normal" planet.
But what would create moons? I propose that the passage of another planet would cause this. The two, nuclear cores of the two, passing planets would create a gravitational void between the two planets. With this void present, each planet would throw off material due to the centrifugal force of its spin. The accumulated material would collapse to form a moon. Perhaps more than one moon.
The above sequence is described in the ancient Sumerian "Epic of Creation" as currently translated. They could have observed a planet coming into the solar system. If it passed nearby some of our planets, such as Jupiter, then both planets would create moons. These ancient writers would see and report these events without understanding the how and why.
The geometric positioning and size of our planets could be explained by such a process, which involves polymeric nuclear fusion first, exhaustion of the solar plasma second, and finally the creation of normal matter by radioactive fission.
Readers need not to worry. Absolutely no one agrees with my wild idea.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 9 months ago #15249
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
I ran across an interesting graphic the other day (sorry, it was in a text and I haven't scanned it in). The graph shows the difference in the melting points of rock wet vs. dry. My point is that materials that are wet from liquid water are more molten than when they are dry. If wet molten rock is ejected into the low pressure (mostly vacuum) of space then the rock could quickly become solidified making some impact into possible planet formation. Just a tidbit to consider....
Mark Vitrone
Mark Vitrone
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 1 month ago #17706
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Is "Bode"s law" a law now then?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.473 seconds